Posted on 05/31/2002 9:28:33 AM PDT by xsysmgr
The most-watched sporting event in the world has begun, and most of my fellow conservatives in America are going to miss it.
While some of you no doubt are thinking that the Super Bowl and World Series are both months away, the event I'm referring to is the World Cup of Soccer, watched by an estimated 3.5 billion people around the world, including millions in the United States, almost all of whom are apparently liberals.
As a movement conservative and rabid fan of the beautiful game (that's soccer, by the way), I find myself as something of a de facto missionary for the sport to the political and cultural right. What is it about soccer that makes it (in America) the nearly exclusive domain of liberal sports fans?
Growing up in Ohio, I started following the game at age 12 via the weekly PBS program (should have tipped me off right then) Soccer Made in Germany, which featured a condensed match segment accompanied by English commentary. Youth leagues were just getting started in our part of the state, and my interest grew as I started coaching kids and playing in high school, but even then it was made clear that I was involved in an outsiders' game in a conservative area.
When I took an announcement of a big victory to my high-school principal one morning, I was greeted with a dismissive glare — it's not a real sport, after all. When my coach, the parish priest in a mostly Catholic town (and thus the only person for whom it was acceptable to be a fan) threw a party to view the 1982 World Cup championship match, only three players showed up. Once, before an afternoon match, my mom informed me that if I didn't cut the grass beforehand, I couldn't go to my own game. Does the high-school quarterback have to mow the lawn before his games?
As I became a more avid follower of the game during the '90s, I started wondering why all the soccer fans I was meeting were political and cultural liberals. I had moved to Washington, D.C. in 1994 to work for a member of Congress, and even the fans from the midwest, south, and west I was coming across via the vast and intricate underground soccer network (it exists, trust me) tended to be liberals. With conventional media coverage of soccer not abundant in America, soccer fans turn to the Internet for information. But a casual survey on the preeminent web gathering place for American fanatics — bigsoccer.com — again demonstrates an overwhelming presence of liberals among the rank and file. If I deign, on the other hand, to ask a fellow conservative about the game, I am treated to the usual pejorative responses.
For the uninitiated (those of you who don't persecute soccer, but just tolerate those who persecute it), such responses include "Soccer is not a real sport"; "Soccer is for girls"; "Soccer is a Commie game"; "Soccer is boring"; and the most damning of all, "So… you watch soccer… ?"
It is fair to note that soccer has had very mixed reviews from the American public in general, not just from conservatives. While the sport as a national youth activity has grown by leaps and bounds (an estimated eight million children are playing this year), the professional game has struggled to catch on. The U.S. went for almost 15 years without a top-flight professional league, and only time will tell if major-league soccer, the well organized and energetic effort to establish such a league here, will become an American institution. Soccer's TV ratings in the U.S. are low. While the women's national team attracted a lot of attention when they won the Women's World Cup in 1999, fan interest in that appears to have been quite specific to that event, much as it was for the Men's World Cup held here in 1994.
The main drawback to soccer for "traditional Americans" is that it is a game requiring some patience to appreciate. Baseball, the thinking man's game, has been affected by this national attention-span deficit to some degree, and traditionalists bemoan how the channel-surfing highlight culture has hurt the game. Turn on a soccer match and you are not likely to see something spectacular immediately (it's kind of like a Rembrandt in that way). While the seasoned fan can recognize the difficulty and artistry of a lengthy and complex buildup to an attempt at goal — often unsuccessful — much of modern-day, sports-viewing America wants feverish action, and wants it now.
There is, of course, huge interest in the game among many of our immigrant communities. Fans follow their homeland teams via satellite and cable telecasts of matches from abroad. In some cities, thousands of fans will gather at a theatre or recreational center to watch a closed-circuit pay-per-view match from South America, Africa, or Asia. Go as an American to a viewing place with a predominantly foreign clientele and you will still draw looks of surprise that a "Yank" or "gringo" would be interested in "their" game.
This perhaps touches near the heart of the issue for a lot of conservatives. Americans have typically come up with their own games to dominate. We invented football (even taking "soccer's" proper name and redefining it to an almost Orwellian degree), basketball, and baseball and made those our major sports. To the degree that these are played and/or followed elsewhere, they are American exports. While baseball is popular in Japan and parts of Latin America, and basketball in Europe and Australia, they are still "American" games first and foremost. Soccer will never be that. In fact, American football in part began, as legend has it, when a game of "soccer" became too boring, prompting a player to pick up the ball and begin running with it, and the rest is gridiron "pointyball" history.
Golf and tennis are also "foreign" in their origins, but they are not linked as closely to their international roots as soccer, and at any rate already had made deep inroads in the American cultural establishment by the early 20th century.
While eschewing anything deemed international or, worse, "European" suits the isolationist streak among certain conservatives, it seems to me that a much more proper Ameri-centric response would be to embrace the game for the purpose of demonstrating American superiority through it. For instance, doesn't saying "We play the best football in the world" kind of have a hollow ring to it? I mean, who else is there? But if the U.S. were to produce professional soccer leagues that rivaled those in Italy, Spain, England and Germany, and a national team that could defeat the likes of Brazil, Argentina, and France, how much crow would the internationalists have to eat then?
To be honest, my attraction to soccer is just that I like the game. But if the lure of American superiority is enough to get you interested in the game (kind of like when Americans get interested in things like bobsledding and Greco-Roman wrestling during the Olympics), so be it.
The time is ripe. Following the explosion of youth leagues, the quality of the American player development system has improved exponentially. We are even making some inroads on the rosters of clubs in England, France, Germany, and Holland. If American conservatives dedicate themselves to backing American soccer, the resultant energy and optimistic buzz might just push the U.S. men's national team to the final rounds of this summer's World Cup, or at least lower the percentage of the fans sitting next to me who voted for Mondale, Dukakis, and Gore. Help a brother out already! Strike a blow for federalism, apple pie, and the gold standard, and make a commitment to watch the World Cup this June.
By the way, the matches, played in South Korea and Japan, are airing live at 2:30 a.m., 5 a.m., and 7:30 a.m. EST. Happy viewing.
— Robert Ziegler lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and children, and directs media relations for a nonprofit public-policy group.
I'll take LIVING (riding my dirtbike) over WATCHING (getting a fat ass) any day.
Everytime I watch Brazil play soccer, they realy don't have to win or even to score, the art is in the movements and the passes!
Similar to "Football Americano", a good pass, and an ipossible catch even if it is at the opposing team is a wonderful things to watch; that is if you enjoy sport rather than looking for war and winnig at any cost even if your team cheated, you still back them?
Can't agree with you there .. remember the Twins are the old Griffith organization, the Washington Nationals/Senators, and thus are an original American League franchise dating back to 1901. They don't belong in the NL.
And the memory you have of our pathetic excuse for a ballpark is correct. There used to be a plexiglass fence in left and left center field but it was removed several years ago once they figured out an outfielder could climb the fence and bring home runs back into play as at places like Camden Yards.
It's interesting that people have such different reasons for watching. There are times when the pure demonstration of skill (or "art") is attractive to me in and of itself. (I like watching power pitchers in baseball, for example.) And I saw and enjoyed a World Cup elimination game between Romania and Argentina in 1994 in the Rose Bowl that was interesting simply because of the spectacle of the crowd. But most of the time, for me the drama's the thing.
Historically you're right. Milwaukee was also always a NL city prior to the Brewers. I just hate the Brewers.
I always had good memories of the Twins particularly Kent Hrbek, who was a deceptively good fielder at first for a man his size. Back when the old AL West was usually a dogfight between Oakland and Minnesota.
The reason that we suck at it of course being that American soccer players are our nations's fifth rate athletes. Imagine for one moment if our biggest, fastest, and strongest pro football and basketball players had dedicated their lives to soccer instead. All of our World Cup opponents would be sent home crying.
I never said "soccer players are gay" in the first place and won't try to defend such a (weird) comment. In general I find soccer players to be short and hairy, and I'm not sure my Wife Or Teen-age Daughter would go for that type of guy, but in any event that doesn't necessarily make them gay ;)
Is soccer boring?
To play, no. To watch, yes. Boring as all get out.
Is baseball exciting?
Baseball is my favorite sport and I consider myself a huge fan, but I wouldn't consider it "exciting" per se. (At certain dramatic moments, of course, it is - and at those times nothing can top it). But overall, being "excited" is not what one gets out of baseball, any more than "titillation" is what one gets out of classical music.
Is soccer liberal, or communist? (the point of this piece) Well, now you have heard the arguments for "no."
Actually, I haven't heard any arguments for "no". I've only heard the characterization derided and laughed at. But not debunked.
Truth be told I do think there's something to the "soccer as socialism" analogy, although like anything else it can be exaggerated and overblown.
Incidentally, can someone point out a "free-market, conservative sport" to me? I'm looking for a sport that has no protected markets, taxpayer-support, or barriers-to-entry.
That's a good point, but if your comments are directed the way I think they are, you are analyzing sports on the level of their marketing, the construction of the professional leagues, the ownership, the laws. But it's more relevant to this conversation (I would think) to analyze sports within the context of the sport itself. In other words, what happens on the field?
Soccer is about teamwork and mass organization to achieve a goal. Baseball victories are comprised of an aggregate of individual efforts and achievements. On the field itself, it's fair to say that baseball is "more free market" or (perhaps more accurately) "more individualistic" than soccer. So on that level (on the field) it does make sense to characterize soccer as "more socialist".
After all, there must be some reason why left-wing people - even those who don't actually watch or like sports! - insist that we all Should Like Soccer. I mean really, what's your explanation for the bizarre phenomenon of wine-and-cheese cocktail-party-attending PBS-watching poseur soccer fans who like to lecture to the rest of us about "The Peoples' Game"?
You want free market competition? Then have the BoSox relegate themselves to triple-A if they have a crappy season. It's what soccer teams in the Bundesliege, Serie A, and the Premier League face every darn season.
The idea that someone is trying to force a sport down your throat is bull++++ and you know it . . . you are engaging in nothing more than a "my d+++ is bigger than yours" pissing contest. I have never seen anyone pissing on football or basketball threads like folks are pissing on soccer threads here. (And don't give me any crap about subject matter . . . just the other day we had a thread that alleged that the NBA playoffs were "fixed," and no one made snide comments about, well, anything).
Face it, you're not interested in hearing any arguments for or against anything. You simply wish to remain smug in your understanding that your sport (whatever that might be), with its multiple substitutions, commercial breaks, and oxygen tanks on the sideline is superior to whatever anyone else might think.
The fact of the matter is, when our boys put on the US uniform and take the field, they are defending our honor in the only sport that the rest of the world plays. Put that in a "conservative" pipe and smoke it . . . .
Why do you care? I thought you "could care a fig leaf" what people like me thought (post #250)
Rubert Murdoch tried to buy Manchester United for a billion US dollars, and failed. Failed, do you hear me?
Yes, I hear you. One multimillionaire "failed" to buy the paper ownership of a soccer team from some other multimillionaire (or group of multimillionaires). What does this mean? Is this good? Bad? What? More to the point, I fail to see the significance of this as to whether I should like or watch soccer (you know, the sport, the thing happening on the field, not in lawyers' offices?), or how it helps explain the phenomenon of leftist PBS poseur soccer fans.
Or, maybe it does. A "capitalist" like Murdoch can buy the baseball LA Dodgers, but he "failed" to buy the most popular English soccer team, and of course this is a cause for celebration amongst leftists! The rich guy got his! It's all about class warfare, and soccer allows for expression of rich-hating class warfare (even though this is kinda silly because like I said, Manchester United is presumably still owned by someone, just not Murdoch...)
Beckham of Man United has two separate contracts, one for himself, and one for his marketing arm. Tell me, why doesn't Brett Favre have the same?
I have no idea. I don't even know what you're talking about. What is a "marketing arm"?
What does any of this have to do with how entertaining the sport is?
[why Brett Favre doesn't have a Separate Contract For His "Marketing Arm"] Because he's a poseur working for a bunch of owners who have done everything in their power to stifle competition, erect barriers to their market, and leech off their fans.
I'll have to take your word for it. I still don't know what you're talking about.
I'll ask again: What does this have to do with how entertaining the sport is?
Anyway, to try to partially respond to your point: Are you under the impression that soccer team's owners do not try to make money off their clubs? Do British kids buy Manchester United T-shirts, hmmmmm? Do tabloids make money selling stories about which Spice Girls their stars are dating?
You want free market competition?
Huh? Did I say this is what I "wanted" out of a sport? Actually, you're the one who brought it up. Personally I don't care much, because I'm talking about what these sports are like on the field and trying to evaluate them as such. You seem very preoccupied with who owns what team and how rich they are and ancillary things like that, which (obviously) have no connection to how entertaining the sport actually is on the field. But at least now I understand, that if I cared more about class warfare and rich-hating (as leftists do) than I did about the actual on the field sport, maybe soccer would be more satisfying for me in some way.
Then have the BoSox relegate themselves to triple-A if they have a crappy season. It's what soccer teams in the Bundesliege, Serie A, and the Premier League face every darn season.
I know that's how it is done, but I don't see why this is a good thing. So you throw out history and rivalries (BoSox vs. Yankees) and you end up with Pedro Martinez pitching in front of 4000 fans instead of 40000 fans, in places like Columbus and Shreveport. What exactly is so great about any of this?
The idea that someone is trying to force a sport down your throat is bull++++ and you know it . . .
No, I don't know it. I'll grant that the people trying to force soccer down America's throat aren't being very successful at it. But they're trying, and you know it.
One never hears laments about how Americans don't embrace cricket or rugby or jai-alai, and how provincial this makes us. These things are only said about soccer, by soccer lovers or at least by PBS watchers momentarily pretending to be soccer lovers for some weird vaguely political reason. Why is that? I still haven't received a satisfactory explanation.
Face it, you're not interested in hearing any arguments for or against anything.
What? Is this even directed to me? What have I said to indicate that I didn't want to hear arguments? In fact in my previous post I asked you directly for your explanation of the phenomenon of the PBS soccer "fan" who likes soccer in theory whether or not he likes sports. You began your post by telling me this would be an explanation, but it's not. It's coming out more and more like a logically disconnected rant. I guess you're pretty worked up about the subject :)
You simply wish to remain smug in your understanding that your sport (whatever that might be), with its multiple substitutions, commercial breaks, and oxygen tanks on the sideline is superior to whatever anyone else might think.
Again, who are you talking to? I've already explained that my favorite sport is baseball. Oxygen tanks???
The fact of the matter is, when our boys put on the US uniform and take the field, they are defending our honor in the only sport that the rest of the world plays.
I guess.
Put that in a "conservative" pipe and smoke it . . . .
The truly conservative response to this is simply to observe that, evidently, in this country there is no tradition of liking soccer and thus no reason to try to artificially induce an interest in the sport. We like what we like and are distrustful of attempts to alter our tastes for one theoretical reason or another.
That's conservative.
By the way, we are playing South Korea tomorrow and could use your support.
Hey, all other things being equal I'd rather have the US win than not win.
I still don't care all that much and won't lose any sleep over it if the US team loses (which, if it happens, I probably won't find out about it till much later anyway, since I'm more interested in finding out things like how the Giants did yesterday and whether Bonds homered...).
The fact of the matter is, by the same standard that the "heavy-thinkers" are using, soccer is less "socialist" than football, baseball, and basketball. That is what I've been attempting to refute by citing to various financial matters. (Incidentally, David Beckham's second contract is between the team he plays for, and the corporation he created for marketing himself to his sponsors). By pointing this out, I am trying to make you wonder why other "athletes" (loosely defined) such as Jordan, Favre, Woods, and Earnhardt haven't done the same. In other words, these American athletes are behind the curve.
I have no difficulty with your observation that soccer is a boring sport. To each his own. But to hold the sport accountable for trying to marketing itself to you is myopic. Every sport does the same, period.
I see. Is it incorrect, though? If so, why?
The fact of the matter is, by the same standard that the "heavy-thinkers" are using, soccer is less "socialist" than football, baseball, and basketball.
How so? And don't tell me stuff about the owners and antitrust exemptions. That's not what people are talking about when they say that soccer has parallels with socialism. They are talking about what happens on the field. Do you understand this yet?
That is what I've been attempting to refute by citing to various financial matters.
I know, but the problem is that the things you're bringing up have nothing to do with what actually happens on the field durring a soccer match, and thus your observations about Rupert Murdoch etc. are irrelevant.
When we say soccer has parallels with socialism we're talking about what happens on the field, as the sport is actually played! GET IT??
[definition of "marketing arm"] Incidentally, David Beckham's second contract is between the team he plays for, and the corporation he created for marketing himself to his sponsors). By pointing this out, I am trying to make you wonder why other "athletes" (loosely defined) such as Jordan, Favre, Woods, and Earnhardt haven't done the same.
I see. Well sorry to break it to you, but I don't "wonder why" Jordan, Favre etc haven't done this, because frankly I don't give a rat's ass how athletes bureaucratically and legalistically arrange their shoe endorsement contracts. I mean, really, who cares? Does this change how athletic they are or whether or not it's entertaining to watch them? I guess I don't get it. Why am I supposed to care about this issue at all?
In other words, these American athletes are behind the curve.
What curve? Behind what? You're evaluating athletes and sports based on some bizarre irrelevant uninteresting criteria (how they are arranged legalistically) and then triumphantly proclaiming that American athletes are "behind the curve" (by your standards). But if I don't care about these silly irrelevant standards you're putting forth - if I don't care about this "curve" you've brought up - then where does that leave you?
But to hold the sport accountable for trying to marketing itself to you is myopic. Every sport does the same, period.
Oh, I definitely agree. In fact I have no problem whatsoever with soccer trying to market itself to me. Actually I would welcome it.
The problem is, that's not what's happening. It's not the case that I feel myself flooded with TV soccer advertisements from FIFA or World Cup. Rather, I feel myself flooded with snide condescending lectures from would-be cultural commentators (think someone like Eleanor Clift) who I can't for the life of me imagine actually sitting down to watch a soccer match on TV themselves, but nevertheless think it's very important for me to do so, and think I'm very provincial and closed-minded and xenophobic if I don't. That's what bothers me.
This isn't "soccer" "trying to market itself to me". This is leftist elitists, unconnected with soccer and (most of them) who probably don't even watch it themselves, who have decided for weirdly political reason which I don't understand (and was hoping you'd explain) that Soccer Is Important For Americans To Embrace and have embarked on a neverending unsolicited lecture series to goad us all into doing so.
So again, what explanation do you have for this bizarre phenomenon, unless on some level soccer is somehow consistent with or similar to socialism and this is perceived by the leftists who proselytize for it? If that's not the case then why exactly do leftists embrace "The Peoples' Game" so much, at least rhetorically? Let me know. Best,
The truth is that I expect you to understand such simplicity. For me to try and convince you of something that needs no argument is a waste of our time. And if some leftist effete snob writes something that you find offensive, then I expect you to sort things out on your own. Ditto for the folks that find the term "soccer mom" so offensive. Who came up with it anyway, FIFA or the American press? I suggest that such antagonism directed toward the sport is utterly misguided.
I'm not asking you to like my sport. In fact, no one is, other than the snobs I mentioned above. But I expect you to understand it . . . and darn it all to heck, the next time some leftist writes a screed about baseball, NASCAR, etc., and I use it as an excuse to denigrate the sport itself, I expect you to point out that I'm being an idiot.
Incidentally, at the end of the South Korea game, and after the players engaged in their customary exchange of jerseys, 3-4 of the Korean players actually put US jerseys on for photographs. That is unheard of . . . and if soccer was such a "socialist" sport played by countries that hate us, how do you explain that? Those players were showing us respect. I could argue that those players were expressing their thanks to us for saving them from the Communist hyenas. If that does not warm a Conservative heart, then I'm on the wrong forum.
You mean like Mike Piazza or Ivan Rodriguez?
and utility infielders?
You mean like Pete Rose?
Look, that is a silly point. All baseball teams would like to have star catchers if they could. But they can't. The ones that do, are lucky. What's your point?
Because baseball managers count on collective effort from their players, and those "marginal" players still have a skill that the team requires.
Yes, of course. No one said that baseball teams weren't teams.
and darn it all to heck, the next time some leftist writes a screed about baseball, NASCAR, etc., and I use it as an excuse to denigrate the sport itself,
Hold on. I don't use those leftist snobs to denigrate the sport itself. I need no such excuse: the sport is boring enough on its own. The leftist snobs are merely an additional annoyance.
and if soccer was such a "socialist" sport played by countries that hate us, how do you explain that?
Who ever said "played by countries that hate us"? Not me. It's played by some countries that hate us, and some who don't. That's not the point at all.
I could argue that those players were expressing their thanks to us for saving them from the Communist hyenas.
Yes, you could argue that. It's not necessarily true, but please, go right ahead, make your argument. Start with some quotes from those ROK players to back it up.
The problem with soccer is that it's boring as hell.
Take an ignorant boob-tube watching knuckle-dragger to a theater production of Shakespeare, and he'll be "bored" too - not because Shakespeare is "boring", but because the person who is "bored" is an ignorant boob-tube watching knuckle-dragger.
The thing is a thing unto itself; value judgements which pronounce the thing "boring" tell us more about the person making the value judgement then they tell us anything about the thing being judged.
Obviously you are one of those with such a high value on your own opinion that you think that billions of soccer fans must be wrong, and that only your opinion about what is "boring" is valid.
Moreover, consider such ancedotal examples as the episode of The Simpsons, where the family goes to see a soccer match that turns into a riot, after which Homer buys a handgun. Now, the writers for The Simpsons are liberals, as are most TV and Hollywood writers. But in this episode, the writers bashed and made fun of both soccer and gun owners. What does that tell you? It tells you there are plenty of liberals who are just as ignorant about soccer as they are ignorant about guns.
So again, what explanation do you have for this bizarre phenomenon, unless on some level soccer is somehow consistent with or similar to socialism and this is perceived by the leftists who proselytize for it? If that's not the case then why exactly do leftists embrace "The Peoples' Game" so much, at least rhetorically? Let me know.
Oh, please. I have no idea what you are talking about. What leftists proselytizing soccer? Where, when, who? Give me real, documented examples. Because I haven't seen it. A few offhanded comments by media liberals does not a conspiracy make. FYI, elitist leftists in Europe don't particularly care for soccer (or sport in general) and only pretend to do so when running for public office. American liberals don't know squat about soccer, as I can attest from years spent in academia. I found more real soccer fans out in the workplace in the DPS (dreaded private sector) then I ever found in college or university. Your conspiracy theory is beyond bizarre, and merely theoretical or rhetorical - that is to say, not based on reality.
What is it about soccer that makes it (in America) the nearly exclusive domain of liberal sports fans?
Completely untrue. Where are these mythical "liberal sports fans"??? I've yet to meet one. Do they hold conventions somewhere? Do they have a website? A newsletter? Do they hang out in bars somewhere and plot their dastardly conspiracy theories?
People who believe there is some kind of massive liberal conspiracy to foist soccer on the American public are seriously in danger of becoming unhinged, if they are not unhinged already. You people need psychological help.
Hmmmm. Let me see. What could it possibly be? Perhaps it is that soccer is not-american.
That's a lie, but it's a commonly believed lie. The first college football games in the USA were soccer games. The oldest football club (Oneida Football Club, of Boston, est. 1862) in the USA played soccer. The US Soccer Federation is the successor to the original American Football Association, established in 1885. Baseball's National League briefly experimented with a football(soccer) league during its off season in the late 19th century. And even by the early 20th century sports writers in American papers still referred to soccer as football or association football. Soccer is as "American" as gridiron football; in fact, more so.
But then Americans are dreadfully ignorant of their own history. For instance, 99% of American sports fans do not know that prior to the mid-19th century, cricket was the most popular ball game in the USA, not baseball, and that the early pro baseball players were originally pro cricket players. They also don't know that our Founding Fathers played cricket, too. Does that make our Founding Fathers "Un-American", too?
After all, they played that pansy English game of cricket; why, they must be traitors! Un-American! Un-American! Someone call the cops!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.